Photo Albums

Currently Reading

June 08, 2006

I would like to talk about a rhetorical device called "the slippery slope." The Wikipeda has an interesting article about this device here. The argument goes like this:

If A occurs then the chances increase that B will occur. (quoted from the article mentioned above)

This movement toward B is usually assumed to be a negative one, thus the analogy of sliding down a slope. The problem is that even if A often leads to B, this does not mean that B is inevitable. When confronted with a slippery slope argument we should question the connections that are implied. Does A really lead to B? A good sign that a slippery slope argument is fallacious is when the invoker is actually saying something like this:

If A occurs then the chances increase that A1 will occur and if A1 occurs then the chances increase that A2 will occur and if A2 occurs then the chances increase that A3 will occur and if A3 occurs then the chances increase that B will occur.

In other words, the connection between A and B is not actually that close. It is only through a long series of circumstances that A might cause B.

I should point out that slippery slope rhetoric is not always fallacious. It can actually be a valid point that A increases the chances of B. What I don't appreciate is when the slippery slope mentality is used as a scare tactic. One of the books that I really resonated with early on in my move away from fundamentalism is The Post-Evangelical by Dave Tomlinson. One of the things he talks about is the way some people try to frighten others by suggesting that they are becoming "liberal."

"If you carry on talking like that," one well-known speaker was chided by a leading evangelical, "people are going to think you've gone liberal, and before long, you'll find that you won't be seen as fully evangelical, and then doors are going to close, and then..." (p.61)

Tomlinson compares this kind of argument to parents telling their children that the "bogey-man" will get them if they don't do such and such. This kind of argumentation frustrates me because if something is true, then it's true. If I believe A to be true, I can't change my mind just because it might lead me to believe B.

Let me end with two important caveats:

I'm not saying one should not consider the consequences of what one believes.

I'm not saying we should assume those who invoke the slippery slope are purposely using it as a scare tactic.

October 18, 2005

I just finished reading Preaching Re-Imagined by Doug Pagitt. The main idea of the book is that preachers need to move beyond the practice of delivering persuasive speeches based on a biblical text. He calls this kind of preaching "speaching" and describes it in the following way:

The "speacher" stands in front of the "audience." The speacher is the only one with a microphone and therefore the only one with the power to speak on the subject at hand. The content of the speech has been decided on with little, if any, input from those who are hearing the speech, and the conclusions drawn are those drawn by the speacher and no one else. (p.48)

The alternative he suggests is called "progressional dialogue." This concept is fairly simple. Instead of doing all the talking, the preacher allows time for discussion. Her opinion is not the only one that counts. Preparation is not done by the pastor, alone in a study, with commentaries as basically her only source of information. At Solomon's Porch, the church Doug Pagitt serves in, they have a gathering every Tuesday night where the passage for that week's "sermon" is reviewed and discussed. This helps to shape the thoughts that Doug will share on the following Sunday.

My only problem with the book is that it did not provide much in the way of "how to" information. Most of the book is spent trying to convince us that preaching needs to be re-imagined. Unfortunately, I began the book already convinced and was hoping for a little more in the form of practical suggestions. I think that the author could have shared more insight about how he has made "progressional dialogue" work without being overly prescriptive. Perhaps he could have even interviewed other pastors who are trending away from "speaching" in order to share what has worked for them. I realize that there is always a danger of people thinking they should just mimic other ministries, but having personally experimented with this, I think that some more real life examples of what has worked would be helpful.

Overall, I recommend this book to anyone who preaches or is planning on preaching sometime in the future. I'm convinced that some things need to change and I hope many more people will be, too.

February 12, 2005

I'm getting too stressed out about the CD I'm working on. I need to take a couple of days off and regroup. Just typing this post is making me want to go back and start tackling it again. I guess I have a problem not letting go sometimes!

In the meantime, I really need to spend some time working on my Samuel sermon for this week. I say "sermon," but it's more like a conversation. I'm trying to use as much of a narrative approach as I can. On that note, I'm looking forward to reading Doug Pagitt's new book, Emerging Preaching:The Role of the Sermon in Communities Of Faith. I'm hoping that it will help me to better understand just how to do this.

My "rules" for the group have been:

Drink lots of coffee—it makes any discussion more exciting!

If you know anything about the story already, pretend you don't. Try to approach it fresh.

The same goes for the characters. I particularly try to stress this point about the character called Yahweh. "Pretend you don't have him all figured out," I say with a mildly sarcastic tone.

Don't be afraid to speak.

I try to stay within the bounds of the narrative most of the time, avoiding the manic passage jumping that happens in many sermons today. At the end of our discussion time, I ask the group how we can respond to God in prayer. This isn't supposed to be a time for "taking prayer requests," although I mention that everyone should feel free to pray for any other needs they are aware of. This stage is an important one that I think we often miss. We hope that the Holy Spirit will speak to us, as individuals and as a group, but it becomes a one way conversation if we don't respond back to God. Unfortunately, I'm guilty of not leaving enough time for prayer most of the time. Maybe I'll do better tomorrow night!

1. We tend to try to make passages fit into our systematic theology. When they don't fit, we either ignore them or try to explain them away. This gets into the debate of metanarrative vs. "little stories."
2. The intention of much of historical criticism is to do away with the tensions listed above. Brueggemann says that in the process, the text "has been emptied of much that is most interesting, most poignant, and most 'disclosing'..." (p.58)
3. We tend to impose "Hellenistic modes of rationality" on the text. (p.58) We have made rationalism our idol.

Bruggemann proposes "a fresh honoring of the ambiguity, complexity, and affront of the text without too much worry about making it palatable either to religious orthodoxy or to critical rationality." (p.59) He even goes on to suggest that "the parts of the Bible that 'do not fit'...may turn out to be the most important." (p.59)

One last thought:

"So in the Bible, I propose, the liberating, healing work of the text is not in the grand themes that serve our various reductionisms, but in the acts and utterances that are odd, isolating, and embarrassing." (p.60)

September 09, 2004

"By imagination, I mean very simply the human capacity to picture, portray, receive, and practice the world in ways other than it appears to be at first glance when seen through a dominant, habitual, unexamined lens." (Texts Under Negotiation by Walter Brueggemann, p.13)

Ask yourself this: What kind of lenses have you been wearing? How about your church culture? How about American culture? Brueggemann asks us to move beyond those sometimes limiting perspectives.

Here's a possible answer to the WWJD question: He would imagine things not as they are, but as they should be. This is the task of the preacher, not only to imagine such things, but to convey them to a group of people. Brueggemann suggests that this task may not be accomplished in quite the same way we've been trying to accomplish it. He makes some startling (to me anyway) assertions:

1. Your metanarrative will not change people.

Trying to come up with a "grand scheme" by which people can change their lives will not be affective. Instead, we must concentrate on "voicing a lot of little pieces out of which people can put life together in fresh configurations." (p.20) We should not try so hard to fit a given text into a systematic theology. We should instead revel in a text that is filled with "memories and narratives and visions and images and metaphors that are not easily domesticated or co-opted." (p.22)

2. Your intellectualism will not change people.

"People do not change, or change much, because of doctrinal argument or sheer cognitive appeal." (p.24)

3. Your moral apeals will not change people.

This is what Bruggemann suggests instead:

"Transformation is the slow, steady process of inviting each other into a counterstory about God, world neighbor, and self." (p.24-25)

What he's saying is that people have to be able to imagine the alternative. This is what Jesus would do (does) and what we are called to do also. The Bible informs this creative process. The idea is that it doesn't tell us what to think so much as it shows us how to think.

So what do you think? (And don't think this post doesn't apply to you if you haven't ever been a "preacher." All of us have been preached to plenty of times!)

August 27, 2004

It's gonna be a regular bruehaha at my place when I receive all of the Brueggemann books I just ordered. Anyone else get this giddy feeling when new book are being shipped to them? Anyone else read Brueggemann? What do you think? I haven't yet, but am excited to start. This is what I have coming:

1. "Texts Under Negotiation"
2. His commentary on 1&2 Samuel
3. "Ichabod Toward Home"—his commentary on the capture and return of the Ark of the Covenant in 1 Samuel.

I will be using these for my next series for both our high school group and my Sunday nights with the adults.

July 25, 2004

I read a great article the other day entitled "Preaching as Folk Art." It's by Leonora Tubbs Tisdale and was printed in the Fall 2001 issue of Fuller's "Theology, News and Notes" magazine.

Tisdale, who was most recently a professor at Princeton Theological, talks about preaching as a work of art. She mentions the importance of reading good literature, not necessarily in order to quote it in a sermon, but because it will have "a cumulative effect on one's vocabulary, use of the language, and powers of imagination." (She is quoting Fred Craddock.)

Professor Tisdale warns of the dangers inherent in "bringing foreign materials into the sermon." The preacher must be mindful of the particular subculture they are seeking to transform. Will the artistic expression being quoted be appreciated? Will the worldviews being expressed strike a chord?

The author likens the preacher to a folk dancer, or more specifically, to the leader of a folk dance. The leader alternately plays the roles of dance initiator, modeler, choreographer or caller, and corrector or encourager. The preacher should remember these various roles as he or she seeks to lead a congregation in the proclamation of God's word. Notice that the role of "performer" was not mentioned anywhere in the list!

The goal is to "model the dance of faith in such an accessible, imaginitive, earthy, and encouraging way that everyone...will want to put on his or her own dancing shoes and join in."